Special Measures in Indigenous Welfare Reform: Examining the Cape York Trial

The Cape York Welfare Reform (‘CYWR’) trial was due to expire at the end of 2011. In October 2011, the Queensland Government voted to extend the trial until the end of 2013. In November 2011, the Federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs announced changes to the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) that will extend another similar welfare reform, the School Enrolment and Attendance through Welfare Reform Measure (‘SEAM’), throughout other parts of Australia. This article examines the CYWR with reference to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (‘RDA’), using the data available in the publications from the Family Responsibilities Commission (‘FRC’).It finds no clear evidence that the reforms have been effective in improving social conditions thus far and, as such, serious concerns as to whether the CYWR breaches the RDA.

Evaluation of Indigenous justice programs.: final report / Project D, Safe Aboriginal Youth Patrol Programs in New South Wales and Northbridge Policy and Juvenile Aid Group in Western Australia

The Australian Government has provided funding to evaluate the effectiveness of Indigenous law and justice programs across five subject areas to identify the best approaches to tackling crime and justice issues and better inform government funding decisions in the future. This report presents the findings of subject area "D", which examined two different approaches to delivering community and night patrol services for young people: the Safe Aboriginal Youth Patrol programs in New South Wales, and the Northbridge Policy project (the Young People in Northbridge project), in Western Australia. Night patrols can address crime either directly or indirectly, by prevention work or by addressing the social causes of crime through community development.

Indigenous Youth Justice Programs Evaluation

Diversion from the youth justice system is a critical goal for addressing the overrepresentation of Indigenous young people in the criminal justice system. In this report, four programs that were already being implemented by states and territories and identified by them under the National Indigenous Law & Justice Framework as promising practice in diversion are examined. The programs were evaluated, as part of a broader initiative, to determine whether and on what basis they represent good practice (ie are supported by evidence). State and territory governments nominated the programs for evaluation.

Indigenous legal education at UNSW: A work in progress

Since the 1970s Australian law schools have provided alternative entry routes and, since the 1980s, pre-law programs and bridging programs. On-going support, once Indigenous students reach university law schools, has been an issue that has not been formally or appropriately addressed in most university law schools. In this way Indigenous students’ chances of entry are disguised as chances of success. Thus once Indigenous students start their law school studies, they are often expected to perform on a level playing field – their success or failure then depends on ‘gifts, merits or skills’ which are culturally appropriate for law school. This attitude fails to recognise the privilege which allows the development of such gifts, merits or skills...

Indigenous as ’not-Indigenous' as ’Us'?: A dissident insider's views on pushing the bounds for what constitutes 'our mob'

In australia, 'Aboriginality' is often defined by people in constrictive ways that are heavily influenced by the coloniser's epistemological frameworks. An essential component of this is a 'racial' categorisation of peoples that marks sameness and difference, thereby influencing insider and outsider status. In one sense, this categorisation of people acts to exclude non-aboriginal 'others' from participation in preinvasion indigenous ontologies, ways of living that may not have contained such restrictive identity categories and were thereby highly inclusive of outsiders. One of the effects of this is that aboriginal peoples' efforts for 'advancement' - either out of 'disadvantage' and/or towards political independence (ie, sovereignty) - become confined and restricted by what is deemed possible within the coloniser's epistemological frameworks. This is so much so that aboriginal people are at risk of only reinforcing and upholding the very systems that resulted in their original and continuing dispossession.

Challenging the assumptions of positivism : an analysis of the concept of society in Sampi on behalf of the Bardi and Jawi people v Western Australia [2010] and Bodney v Bennell [2008]

The requirement to prove a society united by a body of law and customs to establish native title rights has been identified as a major hurdle to achieving native title recognition. The recent appeal decision of the Federal Court in Sampi on behalf of the Bardi and Jawi People v Western Australia [2010] opens the potential for a new judicial interpretation of society based on the internal view of native title claimants. The decision draws on defining features of legal positivism to inform the court’s findings as to the existence of a single Bardi Jawi society of ‘one people’ living under ‘one law’. The case of Bodney v Bennell [2008] is analysed through comparitive study of how the application of the received positivist framework may limit native title recognition. This paper argues that the framing of Indigenous law by reference to Western legal norms is problematic due to the assumptions of legal positivism and that an internal view based on Indigenous worldviews, which see law as intrinsically linked to the spiritual and ancestral connection to country, is more appropriate to determine proof in native title claims.

Australian icons: Authenticity marks and identity politics

This article evaluates the adoption and implementation of an Indigenous certification trademark system in Australia. Section II considers the use of copyright law, moral rights provisions and consumer protection laws to protect Indigenous cultural property in Australia. It suggests that there needs to be additional protection under trademark law - especially to deal with problems concerning communal ownership, material form and duration of protection. Section III evaluates the efficacy of the scheme for marks of authenticity established by the National Indigenous Arts Advocacy Association in November 1999. It contends that there were practical problems with the implementation of the scheme and symbolic concerns about the definition of authenticity applied under the regime. Section IV engages in a comparative analysis of other jurisdictions - such as New Zealand, Canada and the United States. It demonstrates that an Indigenous certification mark can be successful, given sufficient support and assistance. The article concludes that there needs to be a sui generis system to protect traditional knowledge at an international level.

The genographic project: Traditional knowledge and population genetics

This article considers the debate over patent law, informed consent, and benefit-sharing in the context of biomedical research in respect of Indigenous communities. In particular, it focuses upon three key controversies over large-scale biology projects, involving Indigenous populations. These case studies are representative of the tensions between research organisations, Indigenous communities, and funding agencies. Section two considers the aims and origins of the Human Genome Diversity Project, and criticisms levelled against the venture by Indigenous peak bodies and anti-biotechnology groups, such as the Rural Advancement Foundation International. It examines the ways in which the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) grappled with questions of patent law, informed consent, and benefit sharing in relation to population genetics. Section three focuses upon the ongoing litigation in Tilousi v. Arizona State University, and the Havasupai Tribe v. Arizona State University. In this matter, the Havasupai tribe from the Grand Canyon in the United States brought legal action against the Arizona State University and its researchers for using genetic data for unauthorised purposes - namely, genetic research into schizophrenia, migration, and inbreeding. The litigation raises questions about informed consent, negligence, and larger matters of human rights. Section four explores the legal and ethical issues raised by the Genographic Project. It considers the aims and objectives of the venture, and the criticisms levelled against it by Indigenous communities, and anti-biotechnology groups. It examines the response of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to the Genographic Project. It charts the debate over the protection of traditional knowledge in various international fora. The conclusion recommends a number of measures to better regulate large-scale biology projects involving the participation of Indigenous communities.

The con-stitutional re-cognition (s)cam-pain: The campaign for the hidden recognition of first nations peoples' racial inferiority

The constitutional recognition campaign has received party-wide support and its efforts have been promoted by Prime Minister Tony Abbott as being something that would ‘complete our Constitution.’ The broader rhetoric surrounding this campaign suggests that it will result in a just, albeit delayed, recognition of indigenous peoples in the Australian legal system. However, beneath the surface of this seemingly benevolent gesture, is a reaffirmation of the colonial subordination and erasure of the several hundred original nations’ peoples and ways of being.

Closing the gap between policy and 'Law' : Indigenous homelands and a working future

The Northern Territory Government's Working Future: Outstations/Homelands (2009) policy statement gives effect to the Council of Australian Government's Closing the Gap policy on Indigenous housing and remote service delivery. These policies mark a radical shift in public policy that winds back the outstations and homelands movement that began in the 1970's. This paper examines Indigenous homelands policy and considers whether these policies are consistent with the Indigenous human rights and in particular the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), which Australia endorsed in 2009. The author argues that the current homelands policy breaches a number of Indigenous human rights and promotes assimiliation by forcing Indigenous Australians to relocate to access basic services such as health, housing and education. As a consequence these policies are counter-intuitive to the overall Closing the Gap goals of improving Indigenous health outcomes because they fail to take into account the importance of country and culture to Indigenous wellbeing. She concludes that Australian governments need to formulate a homelands policy that is consistent with Indigenous human rights and in particular the right of self determination, enjoyment of culture and protection against forced assimilation.